I'm not sure what argument you are talking about. The analogical argument about who has the right to lay down the law seems a reasonable one, though if the ultimate point is that laws are from God, then we need to know that God made the world and that is not a argued for (and, of course, if gee did, does gee want to exercise the right of ownership in this way? DDJ again.) The claim that God is good just pops up, presumably a definiiton or part of one and so leaving open the question of whether anything fits the definition.

DAMN! Sucked In Again. When ill I remember that, in arguments of this sort, the gut belief is first and governing and any appearance of arguments are just there to make the gut belief look plausible. Infidel things like facts and logic -- and the rules of debate -- are just to be ignored. So, having come to my senses rather belatedly, I drop out of this belief fest. Go, believe whatever you want and believe you have reasons for it. Just don't bug people with the paraphernalia that gets trotted out at the rallies.

In the actual argument presented, the premise is that if there is no God then there is no law. The conclusion is that God exists, we don't need to first establish that he exists, that is the conclusion that logically follows from the two premises. And nowhere do I make the claim that God is good. The statement is that goodness exists, you can change that to badness/evil exists, and the argument still concludes God, it makes no difference.

You seem very confused about how basic logic works. Since the conclusion is that God exists, that is not something to be debated here.

What we are supposed to debate is the premises. And no, you kept banging on about God being bad. It doesnt matter in this argument if God is good or bad.

All your points are irrelevant. You do not seem able to follow logic? I thought you said you did it professionally for 60 odd years?Yet you don't know what a contradiction is, you do not understand conditional premises, or the difference between definitions and premises. You fail to understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion...

You use the terms validity/soundness completely illegitimately, I mean it's fair enough to be confident, but you are too close to the deceptive, this leads me to think you have little background in logic at all. Of course maybe you do, and you are just happily deceptive ?But the fact that you seem unable to even follow basic syllogisms, leads me to believe that you have not really a good understand of basic logic. Your abuse of terms is something highly improbable if you spent a large part of your professional career in logic.

Gut feeling? You seem to be projecting again. facts and logic? rules of debate? You are the one ignoring them, or more likely ignorant of them. Belief fest ? It is a simple syllogism, that your blind belief and lack of logic and lack of facts and ignorance of the rules of debate, are breaking down/being exposed - under.

Follower of the official dialect of toki pona as presented in the official book; Toki Pona, The Language of Good by Sonja Lang.